AYEESURYA MISHRA Vs. LOHIT KUMAR DASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition by Wife-cum-Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dtd. 9/4/2024 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in CP No. 661 of 2021 granting visitation right to the Father-cum-OP to see and talk with his son.

(2.) The undisputed facts involved in this case are that the Petitioner and the Opposite Party are wife and husband and they are being blessed with a son aged about 12 years, but due to dissension, the parties are staying separately and, therefore, the OP-Husband has filed an application against the Petitioner-wife U/S. 9 of the Hindu marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The aforesaid proceeding of restitution of conjugal rights has been registered as CP No. 661 of 2021, wherein a petition was filed by OP-husband to grant him visitation right of his son. Accordingly, the order impugned has been passed granting visitation right to the OP-husband for one hour in a fortnight preferably on second and fourth Sunday and also granting right to the OP-husband to talk his minor-child both through audio and video calls on every Wednesday from 7.00PM to 7.30PM. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order granting visitation and talking right to the OP-husband, the Petitioner-wife has filed this writ petition.

(3.) In the course of hearing, Mr. Pradipta Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Petitioner, however, vehemently and vociferously attacks the impugned order by submitting inter-alia that not only the OP- husband has neglected to maintain his wife and son, but also has not shouldered their responsibility and, thereby, granting visitation and talking right to the OP- husband would not be in the interest of justice, rather it would be counterproductive. It is further submitted by Mr. Singh that not a single pie has been spent by OP- husband for the welfare of the child, but only to linger the proceeding, the OP-husband has filed this proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights and sought for visitation right of his own son therein. Accordingly, Mr. Singh prays to quash the impugned order as passed under Annexure-1.